thesis supervisor: dr. glen schmidt, committee members
TRANSCRIPT
Research Proposal 1
RESEARCH PROPOSAL: EXPLORING KINSHIP CARE
Research Proposal: Exploring Kinship Care
in the North Region of British Columbia
Susan Burke
March 27, 2008/ Student # XXXXXXXXX
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Glen Schmidt, Committee Members: Linda O‟Neill, B.A., M.Ed.
and Dr. Gerard Bellefeuille
University of Northern British Columbia
Research Proposal 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………..2
Introduction……………………………………………….……………………………..4
Literature Review…………………………………………….…………………………5
Definitions………………………………………………………………………5
History of Kinship Care…………………………………………….……….…………..7
History of Aboriginal People in British Columbia………………….………………….11
Profile of Kinship Caregivers…………………………………………………………..14
Profile of Children in Kinship Care………………………………………………….…16
Needs of Kinship Caregivers………………………………………..……….…………18
Need for Financial Support…………………………………….……………….19
Need for Equal Treatment and Respect…………………………………………20
Need for Respite…………………………………………………………………21
Need for Education/Information…………………………………………………22
Need for Assistance in Obtaining Housing………………………………………23
Need for Access to Counseling/Support Groups………………………………...23
Need for Health Care…………………………………………………………….24
Need for Social Worker Support…………………………………………………25
Need for Support Around Child‟s/Children‟s Education…………………..…….27
Need to be Involved in the Planning……………………………………………..28
Research Design…………………………………….……………………………………29
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….…31
Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………….……..32
Research Proposal 3
Expectations……………………………………………………………………………33
References……..………………………………………………………………………34
UNBC Research Ethics Board Approval Form……………………………………….41
Appendix A: Questionnaire………………………………………………….47
Appendix B: Research Practicum Informed Consent 1……………………….51
Appendix C: Research Practicum Informed Consent 2………………………52
Appendix D: Information Sheet………………………………………………53
Appendix E: Informed Consent………………………………………………55
MCFD Research Application Form…………………………………………………..56
Research Proposal 4
Introduction
There are approximately nine thousand children in government care in British Columbia,
approximately one thousand of those living in the North Region of British Columbia (O. Gill,
personal communication, February 14, 2008). In the past decade, the Ministry of Children and
Family Development (MCFD) has for various social and political reasons increasingly shifted its
focus to exploring ways for at-risk children to remain safe without entering the foster care
system. This shift has resulted in the rising use of out of care options by social workers,
resulting in a growing number of children living in kinship care placements with friends or
family members.
Rob Geen, one of the predominant writers and researchers on kinship care in the United
States, contends that society is making a paradigm shift towards kinship care without the
scientific research necessary to adequately support such a shift. While he supports kinship care,
he claims that the practice guidance, support structure, and social worker base are lagging (Geen,
2003a). Geen also claims that more in-depth research needs to be completed in order for us to
implement kinship care programs effectively. This is the case in British Columbia, where the
use of kinship care placements continues to increase, although virtually no research has been
done on this subject in British Columbia, let alone in the unique geographical area of Northern
British Columbia.
This thesis will focus on one primary research question and two sub-questions. The
primary question will be, “What are the needs of kinship caregivers in the North Region of
British Columbia?” In order to provide a solid base from which to ask this question, two sub-
questions will be explored: “What types of families are providing kinship care?” and “What
types of children are being placed in kinship care?” If we are to continue using, and even
Research Proposal 5
increasing use of kinship care placements in Northern British Columbia, we have a responsibility
to the children and families involved to increase our knowledge around kinship care.
Literature Review
In this literature review, I will define some of the terms used in this research proposal and
will then offer a historical look at the use of kinship care around the world. I will offer a
summary of the history of Aboriginal people in British Columbia and will then explore the
literature for profiles of kinship caregivers and of children living in kinship care. Finally, I will
discuss what the literature says about the needs of kinship caregivers.
Definitions
The following key terms are used throughout this proposal:
a) Kin: One‟s relatives collectively; family; kindrid; kinsfolk (Morris, 1982). In this proposal,
the meaning of the word “kin” is extended to include “any relative, by blood or marriage, or any
person with close family ties to another (Takas as cited in Scannapieco & Hegar, 1999).
b) Kinship: The state of being kin or related by blood (Morris, 1982).
c) Kinship Care: “The full-time nurturing and protection of children who must be separated
from their parents by relatives, members of their tribes or clans, godparents, stepparents, or other
adults who have a kinship bond with the child” (Child Welfare League of America [CWLA],
1994, p. 2). In this proposal, the term “kinship care” will include only formal kinship care
arrangements.
d) Informal kinship care: Kinship care which is arranged by parents or relatives where there are
no concerns around safety and protection that have been brought to the attention of the child
welfare system (CWLA, 1994).
Research Proposal 6
e) Formal kinship care: The parenting of children by kin as a result of determination by the
court and the child welfare agency that a child must be separated from her/his parents “because
of abuse, neglect, dependency, abandonment, or special medical circumstances” (CWLA, 1994,
p. 3).
f) Kinship Caregivers: Those adult caregivers involved in the “full-time nurturing and
protection of children who must be separated from their parents by relatives, members of their
tribes or clans, godparents, stepparents, or other adults who have a kinship bond with the child”
(CWLA, 1994, p. 2).
g) Child: A person between the ages of 0- and 19-years-old.
h) Aboriginal child: A child who is registered under the Indian Act (Canada); who has a
biological parent who is registered under the Indian Act (Canada); or who is under twelve years
of age and has a biological parent who is of Aboriginal ancestry and considers her/himself to be
aboriginal; or who is twelve years of age or over and considers her/himself to be aboriginal
(Ministry of Children and Family Development [MCFD], 2002).
i) Aboriginal Person: a person who is registered under the Indian Act, who is of Aboriginal
ancestry, or who considers her/himself to be Aboriginal.
j) Child(ren) in care: Children who are in the custody, care, or guardianship of the provincial
child welfare branch (MCFD, 2002).
k) Foster Care: A foster home is “a substitute family setting that has met the criteria set out
by a child welfare agency and is able to provide foster care services for a child in the care
of that agency” (Fouhse, 2007, p. 10).
l) Restricted foster care: A restricted foster home is a foster home where foster parents who
are approved to care for a specific child with whom they have a previous relationship.
Research Proposal 7
m) Reflexivity: The researcher is “conscious of the biases, values and experiences that he or
she beings to the qualitative research study. Typically, the writer makes this explicit in
the text” (Creswell, 2007).
n) Out of Care Options: Choices for permanency which include family preservation,
kinship care, family reunification, foster-to-adopt, adoption, transfer of custody, and adult
mentorship (MCFD, 2003).
History of Kinship Care
Kinship care is an age-old, world-wide practice. Early examples of children being raised
by friends and family members can be found in the Bible and in early mythological tales (Hegar,
1999a). Kinship care has been and continues to be a central aspect of First Nations culture
(Shoemaker as cited in Hegar & Scannapieco, 2000). Fournier and Crey (1997) note that,
traditionally, there was no greater dishonour for an Aboriginal family than when it couldn‟t look
after it‟s younger members; when this was the case, the surrounding community stepped forward
to share in the raising of the child(ren). This responsibility of assuming the care of relatives‟
children was both implied and overtly stated in the oral traditions and teachings of most tribes
(Johnson as cited in Geen, 2003a).
In traditional Hawaiian practice, the grandparents had a greater claim over the children than the
birth parents, who had to request permission to raise a child themselves (Hegar & Scannapieco).
West Africa is also noted as a centre of kinship care, although there the term is not always
associated with families being in crisis and West African children have historically been cared
for by friends and family members for complex and diverse reasons (i.e. to learn a trade or to
help in the home of a caregiver) (Castle as cited in Hegar & Scannapieco).
Research Proposal 8
Attitudes regarding adults caring for children who were their kin flowed from Europe to
North America. In European history, children who could not be cared for by their parents were
often sent to almshouses and workhouses, forced into apprenticeships, or made to emigrate
(Hegar, 1999b). Relatives were also often expected to help out with child rearing. For example,
the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1603 made it mandatory for grandparents to take responsibility for
dependent children and this law was later extended into the American colonies (Hegar &
Scannapieco, 2000), where the family and extended cultural community were relied upon when
social problems arose. When orphanages were built, it was primarily due to wars and epidemics
which had wiped out families and communities (Hegar).
Many changes took place between the 1950s and present-day which increased the
prevalence of kinship care placements in North America. One of these involved the emerging
idea amongst theorists and researchers in the 1950s that there is an irreplaceable bond between a
mother and her child and it is damaging to the child to break that bond (Bowlby as cited in Takas
& Hegar, 1999). Then, in the 1960s, foster care began to transform as social changes took place
such as it becoming more common for both parents to work outside of the home (Takas &
Hegar). The result was that there were fewer foster homes available to children in care. During
that same period of time, child protection guidelines were created which defined child abuse and
neglect, reporting policies, and intervention strategies (Hutchinson as cited in Davidson, 1997).
The guidelines, which began with the good intention of better protecting children, resulted in
them coming into care at a greatly increased rate, many never returning home and instead living
in multiple foster care placements (Davidson). Just as society was gaining a new, deeper
understanding of the importance of promoting family ties, there were an increasing number of
children in the child welfare system and decreasing foster homes available. For example, in the
Research Proposal 9
United States there were 276,000 child in care in 1985 and 442,000 by the end of 1992.
Meanwhile, the number of foster families decreased by 27% between 1985 and 1990 (CWLA,
1994). Several authors suggest that the increase in kinship care placements in North America
resulted directly from this combination (Scannapieco, Hegar, & McAlpine, 1990; CWLA, 1994;
Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995).
The increase in kinship care placements has followed similar trends in various areas of
the world. In the United Kingdom, between 1996 and 2000 the number of children in care
increased by 13% while the number of children in formal kinship care increased by 32%
(Department of Health, as cited in Broad and Skinner, 2005). In the United States, the
percentage of children placed in kinship care placements increased from 18% in 1986 to 31% in
1990 (Kusserow as cited in Geen, 2003a). In Australia it‟s the most common form of placement
for Indigenous children and in some Australian states it‟s a more common form of placement for
all children than foster care (Spence, 2004).
While British Columbia has been impacted by the historical shifts noted above, it also
presents us with its own unique history around kinship care. Cradock notes that the decade of
the 1990s “was a time of great turmoil for British Columbia‟s child welfare system (2007, p. 17).
Two diverging opinions arose regarding the focus social work practice should take: a “child-
centred” approach or a “least intrusive” approach (Cradock, p. 22). Kinship care was seen as a
midpoint between these two. Inherent in it was an acknowledgment that some parents are unable
to care for their children as well as a recognition that family members should not be precluded
from providing that care.
Previously, the emphasis in North America on early parental attachments and the
acknowledgement that foster care drift was detrimental to a child‟s health was discussed. A
Research Proposal 10
change which resulted in British Columbia, in part due to these larger societal shifts, was a focus
on permanency planning for children which began in the late 1990s and continues to this day.
The provincial government began to promote the idea of “securing a safe, caring, legally
recognized and continuous family outside government care” (MCFD, 2003, p. 3) and put laws
into place which made more allowance for kinship care placements. While the Family Relations
Act had for some time made it possible to transfer custody between friends and family members,
it was the 1996 Child and Family Community Services Act that provided a way for the
provincial government to financially subsidize those placements; interestingly, though, the parts
of the act which allowed for service agreements with a child‟s kin were not implemented until
2002 (Walmsley, 2005). Prior to this act, family members were able to provide care by applying
to become restricted foster parents and were eligible to receive the lowest foster care rate
available (Cradock, 2007). The child, however, remained in care and continued to be the
responsibility of the child welfare branch of the provincial government. Cradock argues that
finances were an enormous incentive for the provincial government to promote the idea of
kinship care placements: a foster home with children with exceptional special needs could
receive up to $10,000 a month, a regular or restricted foster home could receive just over $700
and a kinship care home would receive $450. A new focus on out of care options emerged.
Across British Columbia, as elsewhere in North America, kinship care placements have
been on the rise. For example, in August 2002 there were no Kith and Kin placements (a type of
kinship care placement made under Section 8 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act)
while by August 2007, there were twenty-seven (O. Gill, personal communication, September
19, 2007). These numbers have risen due to an intentional plan on the part of MCFD to increase
Research Proposal 11
the number of children in kinship care placements and decrease the number of children in foster
care.
This somewhat brief history shows that, although kinship care has been known to many
societies for centuries, it‟s relatively new within formal systems of child welfare (Connolly,
2003). Scannapecio (1999) contends that kinship care, as a formal placement plan, gained
acceptance and usage so quickly that practice models have not been able to keep pace and meet
the unique needs of the people providing kinship care. This idea will be discussed further in this
proposal.
History of Aboriginal People in British Columbia
When one thinks about kinship care in British Columbia, it is difficult not to consider it
in the context of First Nations history, especially given the fact that First Nations people have
traditionally used a fluid system of kinship care within their communities. This topic gains
additional importance when one considers that, of the approximately one thousand children in
government care in British Columbia, over 750 of those are of Aboriginal ancestry (O.Gill,
personal communication, February 14, 2008).
At the time of European contact, approximately one-third of the First Nations people in
Canada lived in British Columbia (Duff, 1997). It‟s important to note that these people did not
make up a homogenous group, but consisted of numerous distinct cultures which were “large,
proud and well-organized” (Duff, p. 61). Duff describes ten diverse groups which can further be
broken down by language differences into twenty-six groups. Although the exact population of
Aboriginal people at the time of contact is unknown, it‟s clear that those numbers rapidly
declined after contact for a variety of reasons which won‟t be covered in this literature review.
Research Proposal 12
As part of a larger plan to assimilate First Nations people into European Canadian
culture, the British North America Act was enacted in 1867, giving responsibility for the
education of First Nations children to the Federal government. The result was the establishment
of 80 residential schools across Canada by 1931 (Walmsley, 2005). Many Aboriginal children
went to live in the residential schools, away from their kinship ties and, by the late 1940s, “four
or five generations had returned from residential schools as poorly educated, angry, abused
strangers who had no experience in parenting” (Fournier & Crey, 1997). In 1951, changes were
made to the Indian Act which gave responsibility for Aboriginal health, welfare, and education to
the provincial governments (Fournier & Crey) and by the following year, the province of B.C.
had begun to provide services to Aboriginal people in “matters related to delinquent children,
unmarried mothers, and adoption cases” (Stanbury as cited in Walmsley, p. 20). By the 1960s,
residential schools began to be closed. It was during this transition period that the number of
Aboriginal children in the child welfare system rapidly increased: there were 29 in 1955, 849 in
1960, and 1446 in 1964 (Walmsley). Walmsley suggests that this increase is primarily due to
three changes: 1. The federal policy of integrating non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal children into
the same schools, which resulted in more children being moved home or close to home; 2. The
extension of child welfare laws to reserves (discussed previously); and, 3. The liberalization of
liquor laws after a century‟s worth of restrictions which resulted in more drinking and in less
secretive drinking. It‟s also worth noting, from the previous section on the history of kinship
care, that these changes occurred during roughly the same time as the changes in child protection
guidelines which resulted in more children in general coming into care.
Over the next four decades, changes were gradually made within the British Columbia
child welfare system which acknowledged the importance of kinship ties and, by extension,
Research Proposal 13
culture, to Aboriginal children. Some would argue that this process was very slow. For
example, while one of the primary recommendations of the 1972 Berger Commission Report was
that there should be “increased participation and representation of Aboriginal persons in human
service decision making”, this recommendation was not incorporated into the 1981 Family and
Child Services Act (Walmsley, 2005, p. 23”). The 1996 Child, Family and Community Services
Act brought about some additional reform regarding Aboriginal children and families, but, as
mentioned previously, it‟s more progressive parts, such as the section of service agreements with
a child‟s kin, were not implemented until 2002 (Walmsley, 2005).
Although British Columbia‟s Aboriginal population rapidly decreased after contact, it has
been on the increase since the 1920s (Duff, 1997). The 1893 census gave the total Aboriginal
population as 25, 618 (Duff). According to the 2006 Canadian census, that number is now 196,
070 (Statistics Canada, 2006). It‟s important to note when comparing these numbers that the
2006 census included all Aboriginal people (First Nations, Metis, Inuit), including people who
self-identify as being Aboriginal, so cannot be directly compared to the 1893 number; however,
clearly the Aboriginal population in British Columbia is on the rise. It‟s also interesting to note
that the Aboriginal population is a young population, with 30% of Aboriginal people being
between the ages of 0 and 14, while only 17% of non-Aboriginal people fall into that age group
(BC Statistical Profile of Aboriginal Peoples, 2001).
British Columbia‟s Aboriginal population is not as healthy as its non-Aboriginal
population. While the Aboriginal birth rate is twice as high as the non-Aboriginal birth rate,
infant mortality rates are 11 per 1000 births, compared to 6 per 1000 for the rest of the
population (Webb & Arnott, 2001). In 1990, First Nations people had an average life expectancy
seven years lower than that of the non-First Nations population. They are more likely to have
Research Proposal 14
hearing, sight, and speech disabilities and twice as likely to have a long-term disability. In
addition, AIDS/HIV is increasing at a greater rate among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal
(Webb & Arnott). Aboriginal people are also much more likely to experience poverty, lack of
education, dreary and overcrowded housing, incarceration, and substance abuse (Webb &
Arnott).
As an Aboriginal social worker having worked with many Aboriginal people and
communities in Northern British Columbia in the past 13 years, my perception is that the health
of the families and communities is increasing every year. Webb and Arnott note that “a source
of strength for Aboriginal people is the continued connections between family and community”,
making the topic of kinship are and Aboriginal communities very timely (2001, p. 12).
In the next section, I will discuss what the literature has to say about the types of families
that are providing kinship care and the types of children that are in kinship care placements. I
will then provide a summary of their needs. It‟s important to note that most of the empirical
literature on kinship care involves a comparison between formal kinship care and foster care.
Also, although generalizations can be drawn from the studies, much of the research was done in
specific geographical locations and therefore seems to most accurately capture the situation in
the area from which the sample was drawn.
Profile of Kinship Caregivers
Compared to regular foster parents, kinship foster caregivers are older, more likely to be
single, have a lower level of formal education, and are more likely to be in “fair/poor” health
(Berrick, 1998). They also have a lower average level of income (Brooks & Barth, as cited in
National Abandoned Infants Resource Centre [NAIRC], 2005; Pecora, Le Prohn & Nasuti, 1999;
Berrick, Barth, & Needell, 1994). The majority of kinship foster caregivers in the United States
Research Proposal 15
are people of color, while the majority of foster parents are Caucasian (Berrick et al.; Pecora et
al.). They are most often a grandparent (48%) or an aunt/uncle (44%), and most likely a relative
of the biological mother (73%) (Holtan et al., 2005). Kinship caregivers are also most likely to
be women (Berrick et al.; Pecora et al.).
Studies have shown that the mental health of kinship caregivers is not as good as that of
the rest of the population. Fuller-Thomson and Minkler showed that grandparent kinship
caregivers are at increased risk of depression and those raising children who they identify as
having neurological, physical, emotional, or behavioural problems may be the least likely to seek
support (2000). Baker (2000) points out that grandparents are often in a state of crisis due to the
fact that crisis usually precedes them taking over the parenting role, and are often experiencing
stress over not knowing if their adult child will have more children or will become able to
resume parenting their child/ren. He also points out that the familial component of some
disorders may mean that the caregivers (in this case, grandparents) also struggle with them. For
example, the schizophrenia/bipolar disorder/ADHD that contributed to a parent being unable to
care for their child can potentially be found in the child and/or kinship carer. Musil, meanwhile,
showed that grandparent caregivers tend to report relatively high anxiety (1998).
Kinship caregivers consistently receive fewer services from their local child welfare
agency than foster caregivers, including respite care, counselling, and social worker visits
(Berrick et al., 1994). Research suggests that social workers visit kinship care homes less often
than foster homes for a variety of reasons including thinking the child is safe, feeling
uncomfortable about intruding on family life and/or misinterpreting policy (Meyer & Link as
cited in Berrick, Needell, & Barth, 1999).
Research Proposal 16
According to Gaudin and Sutphen (as cited in Berrick, 1998), kinship caregivers provide
a similar level of safety, support, and supervision to children as do foster parents; foster homes
provide a somewhat higher standard of caregiving environment, but both kinship care homes and
foster homes fall into an “average quality of care” range (p. 79).
As stated previously, some of the research on kinship caregivers is contradictory, perhaps
due to the fact that these studies have been conducted in very diverse areas. For example, while
the findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being suggested that
kinship caregivers are significantly older than non-kin foster parents, contrary to some other
studies, it did not find significant differences in marital status, employment, education,
physical/mental health, or income (National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being
[NSCAW], 2003).
Profile of Children in Kinship Care
Gordon, McKinley, Curtis, and Satterfield (2003) found that the majority of the children
in kinship care were brought into care due to substance abuse, incarceration, HIV/AIDS, and
housing instability. Broad‟s (2002) research yielded similar results, indicating that the majority
of the children were in kinship care due to child protection issues (often stemming from the
substance abuse of the parent), the inability of a previous caregiver to cope, and the difficult
behaviour of the child. Dolbin-McNab (2006), meanwhile, found comparable results,
concluding that children are typically in kinship care due to parental substance abuse,
abuse/neglect/incarceration, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, divorce, and death.
Children in kinship care have medical, emotional, and behavioural needs much higher
than those of children in the general population; however, there is a great deal of debate
regarding how their needs compare to those of children in foster care (Berrick, 1998). Berrick et
Research Proposal 17
al. (1994) found that children in kinship care have medical and dental needs that are similar to
those of children in foster care and Dubowitz (as cited in Berrick et al.) found these children to
have much higher rates of asthma, anemia, and vision and dental problems than American
children in general. However, some studies have shown that the medical, emotional and
behavioural problems of children in kinship care are somewhat lower than that of children in
foster care (Holton, Ronning, Handegard, & Sourander, 2005). In any case, they are at high
risk for having difficulties such as bed-wetting, nervousness, bipolar disorder, and learning
disabilities, and Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder (NAIRC, 2005) and are often in high-
arousal due to stress associated with estrangement from their birth parents (Johnson-Garner &
Meyers, 2003).
Research has shown that children in kinship care experience fewer placements and
breakdowns than had children in regular foster care (Holton et al., 2005; Berrick et al., 1994).
For example, of the children who entered California‟s foster care system in 1988, 23% of those
placed with kin moved on to live in another placement, while 58% of those living in foster
homes experienced at least one more placement during a 3.5 year period (Berrick et al. as cited
in CWLA, 1994). They are more likely to be younger children than older children, but research
suggests that kinship care is increasingly being used for all age groups” (Spence, 2004, p. 266).
They also remain in care for longer periods of time than children placed in foster care and
experience reunification rates which are slower than those children; similarly, they are less likely
to be adopted, possibly because they are already family as well as that they don‟t want to
interfere with the birth parents; however, they are also more likely than foster parents to commit
to raising the children to adulthood (Berrick et al.,). On the other hand, children in kinship care
Research Proposal 18
have more contact with their birth parents and therefore experience more consistency in
relationships (Holtan et al.).
Research suggests that children in kinship care placements are likely to be non-
Caucasian. A study of 600 children in kinship and foster care showed that, of the children in
kinship care, 46% were African-American, 32% were Caucasian, 14% were Latino, and 9% were
from other ethnic groups (Berrick et al. as cited in CWLA, 1994). Another study out of the
United States indicated that African American children are more than four times as likely to be in
kinship care settings as Caucasian children (NAIRC, 2005). A 1989 study of 524 children in
kinship care in Baltimore found that 90% were African-American and the rest were Caucasian
(Dubowitz as cited in CWLA, 1994). Further, research has shown that, once children of black
and mixed ethnicity enter the child welfare system, they remain in care for longer periods of time
and have a tendency to have less stable placements than Caucasian children (Broad & Skinner,
2005).
In keeping with the research on kinship caregivers and finances, Ehrle and Geen found
that 39% of children in kinship foster care live in households with income below the poverty
level, compared with 13 % of children in non-kin foster care (as cited by Geen, 2003b).
Interestingly, other studies have concluded that the vast majority of children feel “loved” by their
kinship caregivers and say they are “happy” with the living arrangements (Wilson and Conroy as
cited in Geen, 2003a).
Needs of Kinship Caregivers
A great deal of literature on kinship care explicitly looks at the needs of kinship
caregivers and, consistently, researchers contend that kinship caregivers should receive increased
services. Berrick et al. make a case for this increase very clearly, stating that “if we are to
Research Proposal 19
assume that kinship (caregivers), who themselves are older, in more fragile health, and less
financially stable, will be able to care for these very difficult children with fewer financial and
concrete supports than foster parents, then our expectations are unrealistic (1994, p. 59). The
next section will take a look at some of these needs.
Need for Financial Support
Not surprisingly, the challenge to kinship caregivers that is most often noted in the
literature is that of finances (Broad, 2002; Laws & Broad, 2000). As previously stated, the
majority of studies on kinship caregivers have founds that they are older, have less education,
make less money, and live with poorer health than foster parents. Perhaps it goes without
saying that the financial strain of adding another child to a family already struggling with these
issues could be tremendous. Unlike foster parents, they usually have received little, or no,
advanced notice and may not have had a chance to prepare for the placement by buying things
such as a crib and a carseat (Geen, 2003a). Kinship caregivers are generally paid less money
than licensed foster or group homes (Henderson & Cook, 2005). They are also often unaware of
other sources of financial assistance such as housing assistance and scholarships (Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, 2002). Some carers who have been in receipt of benefits,
while valuing the assistance, have expressed frustration with the difficulty involved in obtaining
additional assistance for specific needs such as medical expenses (Spence, 2004). Interestingly,
a study done by Testa and Slack (2002) found that placement stability is enhanced when kinship
caregivers receive the full foster care subsidy.
Templeman (2003) points out that the concept of paying kinship caregivers the same
amount as foster caregivers isn‟t quite as simple as it sounds. To begin with, foster caregivers
are required to complete training and to have a home which follows certain requirements (i.e. in
Research Proposal 20
B.C., each child/sibling group in foster care must have a separate bedroom with a window or an
alternate exit). There is some controversy over whether or not kinship caregivers should need to
follow the same stringent guidelines, especially if they are to be paid the same rate as foster
parents. Does it matter if you‟re sleeping on a couch if that couch is at grandma‟s house? There
are also concerns that, if kinship caregivers are paid the foster care rate, this will provide an
incentive to birth parents to have their children enter kinship care arrangements. In addition,
some people worry that kinship caregivers who are provided with funding upon placement won‟t
have an incentive to complete training (Templeton, 2003). Finally, there are generally mixed
feelings in society over whether or not family should be give pay in order to care for their own.
Need for Equal Treatment and Respect
A related topic has involved the perceived disparity between the treatment of foster
parents and kinship foster caregivers, as often evidenced by their difference in pay: as
mentioned, in many areas of the world, kinship caregivers receive substantially less pay than
regular foster caregivers. When states were surveyed by the Office of the Inspector General
regarding their kinship care practices, the policy in the majority of states was that relatives would
not be excluded from any services which were available to foster homes; however, the study
showed that, while kinship caregivers were not systematically excluded from the services, child
welfare offices often had the authority to limit services to kinship caregivers and did so (Berrick
et al., 1999). Although the ensuing disparity in pay may seem to be a purely financial issue, to
many kinship caregivers it symbolizes a lack of recognition and respect for the services that they
provide.
Kinship caregivers state that they would like to be treated with respect and appreciation
for choosing to accept a responsibility that was not originally theirs (Mayfield, Pennucci, &
Research Proposal 21
Lyon, 2002). As stated previously, kinship caregivers consistently receive fewer services from
their local child welfare agency than foster caregivers (Berrick et al., 1994), signalling more
discrepancies between the treatment of non-kin and kin caregivers.
Interestingly, it‟s not just the rate of pay that impacts whether or not kinship caregivers
feel respected. One study showed that grandmothers providing kinship care preferred receiving a
foster payment over a welfare payment due to the stigma attached to receiving social assistance
(Berrick et al., 1994). In British Columbia, this could perhaps be compared to kinship caregivers
receiving a “Child In Home of Relative” payment (which is issued out of a social assistance
office) versus a regular foster payment (which is issued out of a resource office, often by direct
deposit into the caregiver‟s bank account).
Need for Respite
A topic that surfaces repeatedly in the literature is the need for kinship caregivers to
receive respite. This need especially makes sense when we consider the profiles of the average
kinship carer and child in kinship care. For example, many kinship caregivers are grandparents
who have been gearing up for retirement and then have to assume 24-hour care of a child (Broad
& Skinner, 2005). It also makes sense when one considers that the care of a child often occurs
quite suddenly for kinship carers, with no time to plan for childcare beforehand; in addition,
kinship caregivers report a difficult time locating childcare and many report having to quit their
jobs because they cannot find affordable childcare (Geen, 2003b).
A study done on factors associated with positive well-being in grandparent kinship
caregivers found that there was a positive correlation between respite care and well-being
(Sands, Goldberg-Glen, & Thornton, 2005). It makes sense that if the caregiver experiences
general well-being, that will impact positively on the care and well-being of the child.
Research Proposal 22
Need for education/information
Across the United States, there are various requirements for the training of kinship
caregivers. Some states require no training, others are developing training specific to kinship
caregivers, and still others require kinship caregivers to complete the regular foster training
(Templeton, 2003). The need for more training for kinship caregivers surfaces throughout the
literature, taking on several different forms. For example, kinship caregivers often report a need
for information on parenting. We‟ve discussed the fact that kinship caregivers are often
grandparents (parenting for the second time) and care of the child/ren is often thrust upon them
in a time of family crisis. When this happens, they may have to learn parenting skills they
haven‟t used in years and may need to learn updated information on current parenting practices
(i.e. non-physical ways of child discipline), child development, and the particular special needs
of their child/ren (Dolbin-MacNab, 2006).
Kinship caregivers often also don‟t have an adequate understanding of the legal system
and their child‟s legal status. A focus group conducted out of Maryland showed that most
caregivers didn‟t understand the legal status of the children in their care, for example the
difference between having “custody” and “guardianship” of the child. Many others indicated
that they hadn‟t been informed of the permanency options for the child/ren in their care (Gordon,
et al., 2003).
In addition, because kinship caregivers have not typically worked in the foster care
system, they often have a very limited understanding of the child welfare system: for example,
what to expect of their social worker, what is expected of them, and what to expect of the court
system (Geen & Malm, 2003). It‟s been suggested that if they received training in these areas,
they would feel less frustration towards “the system” that they find themselves working within.
Research Proposal 23
Need for Assistance in Obtaining Housing
Another need often mentioned by kinship caregivers is assistance with obtaining
reasonably-priced, adequate housing. Given the profile of the average kinship caregiver and the
fact that they are often taking in more than one child, it makes sense that they might need
assistance in finding housing with more space at a price they can afford.
Although inadequate housing can also be an issue in a child‟s home or in a foster home,
the difference is that there are rules for foster caregivers around living accomodations (Broad &
Skinner, 2005). If these same rules were applied to kinship caregivers, they would preclude
many kinship homes. Broad and Skinner make a case for government not increasing regulations,
but providing additional funding to kinship caregivers for adequate housing when needed. They
point out that, on average, it costs 100 pounds (approximately $ Canadian ) a week to keep a
child in kinship care and 5000 pounds (approximately $ Canadian) a week to keep a child in a
residential facility. Broad and Skinner contend that this extra money could be used to support
families and government should not take the view that kinship care is “care on the cheap” (p.
66).
Need for Access to Counseling/Support Groups
Throughout the literature, the need for access to counseling and support groups comes up
repeatedly. One example of this need involves the role confusion that grandparents feel when
they begin to parent their grandchildren and struggle to reconcile their desire to be lenient
grandparents with their perception that their grandchildren need firm parenting (Weber &
Waldrop, as cited in Dolbin-MacNab, 2006). The loss of the traditional grandparenting role is
something that must be grieved as well as the loss of the child having a traditional family
Research Proposal 24
(Landry-Meyer & Newman, 2004). Grandparents must also work through the social isolation
they often experience due to their changing roles. One study quoted a grandmother as saying,
We are in a totally different age group. If people (our age) are sharing
anything, it‟s grandkids for a couple of days or something like that.
We can‟t. . . We are kinda like in limbo or almost in a self-defined
island, you know? Our friends are changing (Landry-Meyer &
Newman, 2006).
Sands et al. (2005) found a correlation between grandparents‟ perception of stress and
their actual well-being. They suggest that grandparents can be helped through supportive,
strengths-based individual or family counselling which can assist them in reframing their
situation positively and by enhancing the “resilience that is within their families, such as a sense
of cohesion, financial stability, a sense of mastery, and communication” (2005, p. 78).
Much of the literature also discusses the use of support groups. In a study of predictors
of grandparent carers‟ health status, Leder, Grinstead, and Torres (2007) found that grandparents
reported considerable benefit from the emotional support they received from support groups and
from their sense that someone else was in a similar situation as them. Meanwhile, Sands et al.
(2005) reported a negative correlation between support groups and grandparent well-being. It‟s
been suggested that in order for a support group to be effective, there must be a balance between
having members vent and having them receive new information – a lack of balance in this area
could increase the anxiety of the participants and impact the effectiveness of the support group.
Need for Health Care
Another theme within the literature is the need for access to quality health care. Given
the profile of the kinship caregivers and the children in kinship care, along with the United States
medical system, it makes sense that this need would surface. Many children become involved
with the child welfare system due to neglect and are behind on routine medical and dental care
Research Proposal 25
(Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). They require thorough medical and dental assessments as well as
support in carrying through on recommendations. Broad and Skinner (2005) point out that this
need for health care can involve both the caregiver‟s health and the health of the child(ren).
Also, it can involve both physical and mental health needs. Although children in kinship care
have similar medical needs to children in foster care, additional medical funding is more
available to children in foster care (Berrick et al., 1994).
Need for Social Worker Support
Kinship caregivers cite a need for more social worker support. As stated previously,
studies have shown that kinship caregivers receive less time with social workers than regular
foster parents. Spence (2004) found that social workers often value kinship caregivers but
question the agency‟s place in intervening in or supporting the family given the fact that kinship
care is seen as a least intrusive measure. He also found that, due to caseload crisis, social
workers often didn‟t have time for more than a brief contact or crisis work. On their part,
kinship caregivers may be hesitant to ask for help because they fear that social workers will see
them as being incapable of caring for the child(ren) or of being difficult (Geen, 2003b).
Some authors also cite a tendency for child welfare workers to remove children from an
entire kin network assuming that parental failure must be a result of the network‟s failure (Gray
& Nybell, 1990). Meyer and Link (as cited in Berrick, 1994) explored this issue and found that
the majority of kinship care placements in their study provided a safer environment for children
than continued living with the birth parents; they also found that in many cases the abusive or
neglectful parent was the only dysfunctional family member.
Kinship caregivers particularly cite the need for support around birth parent contact and
difficult child behaviors. This need is especially evident when one considers that studies have
Research Proposal 26
shown that birth parents have more frequent and unsupervised contact with their children in
kinship than in non-kinship care (Berrick, 1994). Birth parents may assume that they have
unlimited access to the child(ren) and kinship caregivers may find it difficult to regulate contact
and to maintain their relationship with the child and the birth parent(s) (Broad & Skinner, 2005).
Hirshorn, Van Meter, and Brown (2000) discuss the difficult relationship between birth parents
and kinship caregivers, one which is often characterized by the birth parent having an on
again/off again presence which plays upon the emotions of the children and upsets household
rules and routines. Children often find it hard to leave their parents at the end of a visit and
parents are often unreliable and miss visits or break promises that they make to the child(ren)
(Broad & Skinner, 2005). Another stressor can be chronic conflict between the kinship
caregivers (i.e. grandparents) and their adult children (Butler & Zakari, 2005). Some caregivers
reported that they felt taken advantage of by the birth parents (who are in many cases their
children), others expressed concern for the children‟s safety while visiting with the birth parents
and others reported mixed feelings over their desire for the children to be returned to the birth
parents and their concern over the children‟s safety and well-being (Gordon et al., 2003).
Generally, a need for social worker support in working through some of these difficulties is cited
as a need.
Kinship caregivers also describe a need for social worker support around difficult child
behaviors. Again, given the profile of both the kinship caregivers and the children in kinship
care, and the fact that most kinship caregivers receive little training, it makes sense that they
would need social worker support in this area.
Within the literature, there are also suggestions that the social workers who deliver
services to kinship caregivers be specially trained in this area (Gillen, 2004; Laws & Broad,
Research Proposal 27
2000) and have caseloads devoted to kinship carers. Specific caseloads would not only give
social workers more time to devote to kinship caregivers, but would also allow them to become
more knowledgeable about the specific issues around kinship care. For example, Szinovacz,
Deviney, and Atkinson (1999) showed in a study on grandparents‟ mental health that “age, being
married, education, and having dependent children in the household” reduced the negative
impact of raising grandchildren while other studies have shown that “age and employment status
and the number of grandchildren…contributed to distress” (Kelley, Whitley, Sipe, & Yorker, as
cited in Sands et al., 2005). Knowing that being married and having dependent children in the
household could reduce stress on the caregiver while the number of grandchildren could increase
the stress could allow a specialized worker to more effectively assess families for placement and
then provide them with needed supports. Broad and Skinner (2005) provide a good description
of the use of “specialist kinship care teams” in the United Kingdom which are located within the
adoption section of the local legal authority and manage all kinship care assessments and support
(p. 58).
Need for Support Around Child’s/Children’s Education
Broad and Skinner (2005) point out that a high proportion of children in kinship care
have had their education disrupted and have special education needs. It can be expensive to start
at a new school and, during the year, the costs of things such as uniforms, school trips, and sports
activities (Stevenson, Henderson, & Baugh, 2007) can be difficult for families to meet . In
addition, the educational system can be overwhelming at times and families often need assistance
in negotiating it and in helping to advocate for needed supports (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002).
Kinship caregivers, who are often elderly, also report the need for tutoring due to their inability
to help their children with their homework (Geen, 2003b).
Research Proposal 28
Need To Be Involved In The Planning
Research also indicates that kinship caregivers and extended family members need to be
involved in the planning for children in kinship care if a strengths-based approach to be effective
(Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). Geen and Malm (2003) point out that, although kinship
caregivers often have more involvement in planning than foster parents, they also often have less
input. They provide some possible reasons for this situation, including the possibility that
kinship caregivers aren‟t invited to attend meetings, that they don‟t understand the process, that
they feel that they won‟t be given a chance for real input, and/or that meetings are held during
the day when they‟re unable to attend. In their discussions with social workers, Geen and Malm
found that the input of kinship caregivers was valued by social workers and group facilitators
and that ideas and decisions often surfaced during meetings that wouldn‟t have if family hadn‟t
been given the opportunity to give their input (2003).
In summary, the literature indicates that kinship caregivers receive fewer services than
their non-kin counterparts, despite having overall greater services needs (Geen, 2003b). Some
reasons for this disparity include the fact that workers offer fewer services to kinship caregivers,
kinship caregivers request services less often, and kinship caregivers face barriers to accessing
services. The topic of kinship care and needed services is very important: in their study on
resilience in children in kinship care, Johnson-Garner and Meyers (2003) found that resilient
children generally lived in homes with higher levels of support and, when kinship carers felt
supported, they were able to be more effective with their families.
In the literature I reviewed, the main service needs that surfaced were as follows:
Adequate funding, equal to the foster payment, with the ability to apply for
additional funding as needed
Research Proposal 29
Equal treatment and a feeling of being treated with respect and dignity
Respite
Assistance in obtaining and paying for adequate housing
Education and training
Access to counseling and support groups
Assistance with health care
Social worker support
Support around their child(ren)‟s education
Involvement in the planning process
Research Design
I‟ve worked as a social worker for the past thirteen years, often supporting adults who are
caring for at-risk children (primarily as adoptive parents or foster parents). One thing I‟ve
learned over the years is that, if you truly want to understand how a certain caregiving
arrangement is working, you need to speak directly with the people living within it on a daily
basis. No politician, manager, team leader, or social worker can truly attest to the triumphs and
struggles of raising a child within a particular system. For that reason, I chose a qualitative
design for this study: a primary task of qualitative research is to explain the ways that people
come to understand, take action, and otherwise manage their day-to-day situations (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). It also appeals to me that qualitative researchers conduct their studies in the
„field‟, where the participants live and work (Creswell, 2007) as I‟ve found that caregivers are
most open when they‟re in their own familiar territory (i.e. at home) and that such a setting can
also help to balance out power during an interview. Creswell (2007) offers a succinct, yet
thorough definition of qualitative research, writing:
Research Proposal 30
Qualitative research being with assumptions, a worldview, the possible
use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring
into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human
problem. To study this problem, qualitative researchers use an
emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a
natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and
data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes. The
final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants,
reflexivity of the researcher, and a complex description and
interpretation of the problem, and it extends the literature or signals
calls for action (p. 37).
I plan to include all of these elements in my thesis.
Regarding methodology, I plan to use a case study approach. Creswell (2007) describes
case study research as research which involves “the study of an issue explored through one or
more cases” (p. 73). He further expands on this idea by describing a multiple case study, where
again one issue is selected, but multiple case studies are used to demonstrate the issue. I plan to
interview 10 – 20 kinship caregivers/families, which will represent 10 – 20 case studies on the
issue of kinship care. I plan to interview these families using a semi-structured interview
process, transcribe the interviews, and use thematic analysis to find the themes which occur in
the interviews.
As stated previously, I plan to use a sample of between 10 and 20 kinship care families. I
will use a criterion sampling strategy and will “review and study all cases that meet some
predetermined criterion of importance” (Patton, 2002, p. 238). In this case, the criterion will be
that all participants involved will live in the North Region of British Columbia and will be caring
for a child or children through a formal kinship care arrangement with the knowledge of the
Ministry of Children and Family Development. I plan to interview the primary caregiver in the
home and, if other family members join the interview, I will be open to that as well. I plan to
focus less on having a large sample and more on obtaining a rich, “thick” description from the
Research Proposal 31
participants. According to Patton, qualitative methods facilitate the study of issues in “depth and
detail” (2002, p. 14) and I feel that a small sample size allows for that.
Miles and Huberman (1994) stress the importance of defining boundaries early on in the
research process. They define this process as one where you “define aspects of your case(s) that
you can study within the limits of your time and means, that connect directly to the research
question, and that probably will include samples of what you want to study” (p. 27). The
boundaries of this research on kinship care will include people over the age of 18, living in the
North Region of British Columbia and, with MCFD involvement, caring for children who are
friends or family members and who could not otherwise be cared for by their birth parents at this
given time.
Limitations
One of the obvious limitations of this study is that it will involve a sample of
approximately 10 to 20 kinship caregivers and the findings will not be generalizeable to all
kinship care families. The study will look primarily at families living in or near Prince George, a
city of approximately 80, 000 people, which means that the voices of families living in more
rural conditions will not be conveyed.
It is difficult to ignore the fact that the participants might feel differently in sharing
information with me, as an MCFD social worker, than they would with someone more neutral. I
will acknowledge both roles to my participants, but will emphasize that I will be working with
them in my role as a researcher. There is a small chance that the kinship care providers I
interview will at some time have involvement with the adoption office in which I work (i.e. if
they apply to adopt a child in their care). There are numerous social workers on my team and I
Research Proposal 32
will ensure that I do not work with anyone who is both a research participant and an adoption
client.
I also come with certain biases as a researcher, both due to who I am as an individual and
due to my life experiences. I was born and raised in Prince George and have spent my entire
career as a social worker in this city. I am a woman, I am Metis, and my passion as a mother and
a long-time adoption social worker is permanency for children. I strongly believe that we as a
society have to come up with ways for children to stay more connected with family and to avoid
moving from foster home to foster home. I bring all of these facets of me as an individual to my
role as a researcher.
Ethical Considerations
As alluded to above, this topic is very personal to me. For the past thirteen years, I‟ve
watched children come in and out of the British Columbia child welfare system. I‟ve read child-
in-care files that left me feeling raw, sad, angry, and impotent. I‟ve seen young people “age
out” of the system alone. As a mother, I‟ve had children visit in my home who belonged to a
foster family and a school and a community one day, and then the next day, did not. I provided
short-term kinship care to a young child and found this experience to be rewarding,
heartbreaking, frustrating, and, ultimately, uplifting. I bring all of these experiences to my
journey as a researcher and it would be naïve to think that they won‟t impact my research in
some way.
As a form of self-care, I write poetry about my work and say prayers for the children and
families that I have a hard time letting go of. I will continue to do this.
Research Proposal 33
Expectations
It‟s exciting to be working during a time when the importance of kinship connections are
being re-realized. It‟s also exciting to be living in an area of British Columbia where I, as a
researcher, can have an actual role in some of the changes that are occurring. I initially
completed some of this research for a practicum and already it has been read by several people
who have an impact on policy as well as those that work within those policies. My hope is that
the findings from this research will continue to be used to make a positive change for the people
providing kinship care and, ultimately, the children living within kinship care arrangements.
Research Proposal 34
References:
Baker, D. (2000). Custodial grandparenting and ADHD. In B. Hayslip & R. Goldberg-Glen
(Ed.), Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical
Perspectives (pp. 145 – 160). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
B.C. Statistical Profile of Aboriginal Peoples 2001. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen01/abor/tot_abo.pdf.
Berrick, J.D. (1998). When children cannot remain home: Foster family care and kinship care.
The Future of Children, 8(1), 72 – 87.
Berrick, J.D., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and
foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation.
Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1/2), 33 – 63.
Berrick, J.D., Needell, B., & Barth, R.P. (1999). Kin as a family and child welfare resource:
The child welfare worker‟s perspective. In R.L. Hegar and M. Scannapieco (Eds.),
Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 179-192). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Broad, B. (2002). All in the family, Community Care, 1436, p. 38 – 39.
Broad, B., & Skinner, A. (2005). Relative benefits: Placing children in kinship care. London:
British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
Butler, F., & Zukari, N. (2005). Grandparents parenting grandchildren: Assessing health status,
parental stress, and social supports. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 31(3), 43 – 54.
Child Welfare League of America. (1994). Kinship care: A natural bridge. Washington, DC:
Child Welfare League of America.
Research Proposal 35
Connolly, M. (2003). Kinship Care: A selected literature review. Retrieved September 10,
2007 from http://www.cyf.gov.nz/documents/Kinshipcare.pdf.
Cradock, G. (2007). The politics of kith and kin: Observations on the British Columbia
government‟s reaction to the death of Sherry Charlie. First Peoples Child and Family
Review, 3(1), 15 – 33).
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd
ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
Davidson, B. (1997). Service needs of relative caregivers: A qualitative analysis. Families in
Society, 78(5), 502-510.
Dolbin-MacNab, M. (2006). Just like raising your own? Grandmothers‟ perceptions of
parenting a second time around. Family Relations, 55, 564 – 575.
Duff, W. (1997). The impact of the White man (2nd
ed.). Victoria, BC: Royal British Columbia
Museum.
Fouhse, B. (2007). Moving forward with lessons from the past: An examination of kinship foster
care in the Yukon. Prince George, BC: University of Northern British Columbia.
Fournier, S., & Crey, E. (1997). Stolen from our embrace: The abduction of First Nations
children and the restoration of Aboriginal communities. Vancouver, BC: Douglas &
McIntryre.
Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2000). America‟s grandparent caregivers: Who are they?
In B. Hayslip & R. Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchildren:
Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (pp. 3 – 21). New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Company.
Research Proposal 36
Geen, R. (2003a). Kinship foster care: An ongoing, yet largely uninformed debate. In R. Geen
(Ed.), Kinship care: Making the most of a valuable resource (pp. 1 – 23). Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Geen, R. (2003b). Providing services to kinship foster care families. In R. Geen (Ed.), Kinship
care: Making the most of a valuable resource (pp. 153 – 178). Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Geen, R., & Malm, K. (2003). Casework practices with kinship foster parents. In R. Geen (Ed.),
Kinship care: Making the most of a valuable resource (pp. 95 – 127). Washington, DC:
Urban Institute Press.
Gillen, S. (2004). Court action will test discriminatory fostering payments to kinship carers.
Community Care, 1512, 18 – 19.
Gordon, A., McKinley, S., Curtis, P., & Satterfield, M. (2003). A first look at the need for
enhanced support services for kinship caregivers. Child Welfare, 82, 77 – 96.
Gray, S., & Nybell, L. (1990). Issues in African-American family preservation. Child Welfare,
69, 513 – 523.
Gordon, A., McKinley, S., Curtis, P., & Satterfield, M. (2003). A first look at the need for
enhanced support services for kinship caregivers, Child Welfare, 82, 77 – 97.
Hegar, R.L., (1999a). Kinship foster care: The new child placement paradigm. In R.L. Hegar
and M. Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 225-
240). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hegar, R.L. (1999b). The cultural roots of kinship care. In R.L. Hegar and M. Scannapieco
(Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 17-27). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Research Proposal 37
Hegar, R.L., & Scannapieco, M. (1995). From family duty to family policy: The evolution of
kinship care. Child Welfare, 74, 200 – 217.
Hegar, R.L., & Scannapieco, M. (2000). Grandma‟s babies: The problem of welfare eligibility
for children raised by relatives. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 27(3), 153-171.
Henderson, T., & Cook, J. (2005). Grandma‟s hands: Black grandmothers speak about their
experiences rearing grandchildren on TANF. International Ageing and Human
Development, 61(1), 1 – 19.
Hirshorn, B., Van Meter, M., & Brown, D. (2000). When grandparents raise grandchildren due
to substance abuse: Responding to a uniquely destabilizing factor. In B. Hayslip Jr.,
Robin Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical,
empirical, and clinical Perspectives (pp. 269 – 287). New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Company.
Holton, A., Ronning, J., Handegard, B., & Sourander, A. (2005). A comparison of mental health
problems in kinship and nonkinship foster care. European Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 14, 200 – 2007.
Johnson-Garner, M., & Meyers, S. (2003). What factors contribute to the resilience of African-
American children within kinship care? Child & Youth Care Forum, 32(5), 255 – 269.
Landy-Meyer, L., & Newman, B. (2004). An exploration of the grandparent caregiver role.
Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1005 – 1025.
Laws, S., & Broad, B. (2000). Looking after children within extended family: carers’ views:
Executive summary. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from http://www.dmu.ac.uk.
Leder, S., Grinstead, L., & Torres, E. (2007). Grandparents raising grandchildren: Stressors,
social support, and health outcomes. Journal of Family Nursing, 13, 333 – 352).
Research Proposal 38
Mayfield, J., Pennucci, A., & Lyon, C. (2002). Kinship care in Washington state: Prevalence,
policy, and needs. Washington: Washington State University.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. USA: Sage Publications.
Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2003). Child, Family and Community Service
Act. Victoria, BC: Government Printing Office.
Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2003). Achieving out of care permanency for
children and youth in care: Permanency planning model for British Columbia. Victoria,
BC: Government Printing Office.
Morris, W. (Ed.). (1982). The Houghton Mifflin Canadian dictionary of the English language.
Markham, Ont: Houghton Mifflin Canada.
Musil, C. (1998). Health, stress, coping, and social support in grandmother caregivers. Health
Care For Women International, 19, 441 – 455.
National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Centre (California). (2005). From the child’s
Perspective: A qualitative analysis of kinship care placements. University of California.
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (2003). Retrieved September 12, 2007,
from http://www.researchforum.org/project_general_250.html.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications: USA.
Pecora, P., Prohn, N, & Nasuti, J. (1999). Role perceptions of kinship and other foster parents in
family foster care. In R.L. Hegar and M. Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care:
Policy, practice, and research (pp. 17-27). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sands, R., Goldberg-Glen, R., & Thornton, P. (2005). Factors associated with the positive well-
being of grandparents caring for their grandchildren. Journal of Gerontological Social
Work, 45(4), 65 – 82).
Research Proposal 39
Scannapieco, M. (1999). Formal kinship care practice models. In R.L. Hegar and M.
Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 71-83).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Scannapieco, M., & Hegar, R.L. (2002). Kinship care providers: Designing an array of
supportive services. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4), 315 – 327.
Scannapieco, M., & Hegar, R.L. (1999). Kinship foster care in context. In R.L. Hegar and M.
Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 1-13). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Scannapieco, M., Hegar, R.L., & McAlpine, C. Kinship care and foster care: A comparison of
characteristics and outcomes. Families in Review, 78(5), 480-488).
Spence, N. (2004). Kinship care in Australia. Child Abuse Review, 13, 263 – 276. Statistics
Canada (2007). Prince George, British Columbia (table). 2006 community profiles.
2006 census.
Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-xwe. Ottawa. Resealed March 13, 2007. Retrieved
February 11, 2008 from
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Stevenson, M., Henderson, T., & Baugh, E. (2007). Vital defenses: Social supports appraisals
of Black grandmothers parenting grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 182 –
211.
Szinovacz, M., DeViney, S., & Atkinson, M. (1999). Effects of surrogate parenting on
grandparents‟ well-being. Journal of Gerontology, 54B(6), 376 – 388.
Research Proposal 40
Takas, M., & Hegar, R.L. (1999). The case for kinship adoption laws. In R.L. Hegar and M.
Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 54-67).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Templeton, A.J. (2003). Licensing and payment of kinship foster payments. In R. Geen (Ed.),
Kinship care: Making the most of a valuable resource (pp. 63 – 94). Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute Press.
Testa, M., & Slack, K. (2002). The gift of kinship foster care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 24, 55 – 78.
Walmsley, W. (2005). Protecting aboriginal children. UBC Press: Vancouver.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2002). Kinship care in Washington state:
Prevalence, policy, and needs. Washington, DC: Author.
Webb, L., & Arnott, J. (2001). Needs assessment: Child welfare services for off-reserve
aboriginal families and older youth in the Cariboo. Prince George, BC: Child Welfare
Research Centre at the University of Northern British Columbia.
Research Proposal 41
RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD
APPROVAL FORM
Please check [ X ] one of the following options before completing the rest of the application. [ ] This is the protocol statement of a routine undergraduate class
project that is usually employed in your class. Please submit 8 copies to the Office of Research for full review by the Research Ethics Board (REB).
[ X ] This is a research project and a full Research Ethics Board review is
requested. Please submit 8 copies to the Office of Research.
APPLICANTS ARE REMINDED THAT RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN
PRIOR TO APPROVAL BY THE RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD.
Research Proposal 42
1. Researchers Name Susan Burke
2. Address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
3. Phone No. XXXXXXXXXX Email XXXXXXXXXXXX
4. Supervisor’s Name & Signature (if Researcher is a student)
Name & Position (Print) Glen Schmidt, Associate Professor – Social Work Program
Signature
5. Program
Masters of Social Work
6. Title of Project
What are the needs of kinship caregivers in the North Region of British Columbia?
7. Type of Project [ ] Class Project (Class projects are normally reviewed by professors after a
protocol has been reviewed by the Research Ethics Board). [ X ] Thesis [ ] Faculty Research 8. Source of Funding (if any)
None.
9. Is this project a replication of an earlier project or protocol that received
ethics approval?
[ ] Yes (Attach copy of the Certificate or letter and submit to the REB. Please clarify (on a separate sheet) if there are any changes being made to the previously approved proposal or if the proposals are identical).
[ X ] No (Go to Question 10)
Research Proposal 43
10. Purpose of Research
This research is part of a thesis pertaining to kinship care. It is intended to gather information from families who are caring for a child or children in a kinship care arrangement or who have done so in the past. In asking questions pertaining to their lived experiences, the researcher will gather evidence concerning: - the challenged of caring for a child through kinship care - the rewards of caring for a child through kinship care - what could be done differently - what is being done well - what changes participants feel should take place in order to improve the current
system of kinship care - what services kinship caregivers feel they would benefit from
11. Project Dates:
Expected Start Date April 2008
Expected Completion Date February 2009
12. Does this project require any physically invasive procedures (e.g. blood
tests), potentially harmful physical regimes (e.g. special dieting) or potentially harmful psychological or social experiments (e.g. illusory perception tests)?
[ ] Yes [ X ] No 13. Summary of Methods: In the text box below give us a brief summary. Sufficient
information must be given to assess the degree of risk to participants.
It is my intention to use the qualitative paradigm to conduct the research. I will use the words and experiences of participants who are caring for or have cared for children in kinship care arrangements. It is my intention to ask the participants 35 questions through a semi-structured interview process. Please refer to Appendix A for a list of these questions. These questions will be a beginning point only and there will be the opportunity for further discussion. Once all of the interviews have been conducted, a thematic analysis will be completed as a means to find the commonalities in the data.
Research Proposal 44
14. Please append a complete copy of the research project proposal, including
any interview protocols or questionnaires. Attachments: [ X ] Research Project Proposal (Please see Appendix F)
[ X ] Interview Protocols [ X ] Questionnaires (Please see Appendix A) 15. How will participants be recruited? In the text box below give us a brief
summary.
I completed a research practicum with the Ministry of Children and Family Development in November of 2007. This research involved assessing the needs of kinship caregivers in the North Region of BC. At that time, the names of the families providing kinship care were provided to me by MCFD and I contacted a sample of these families via phone to inquire as to whether or not they would be willing participate. I quickly became very interested in this topic and requested of MCFD that I be given approval to use it for my thesis topic. I also asked the participants, at the end of each interview, if they would be willing to be contacted at a later date regarding me using their information for my thesis. All families agreed. (Please see Appendixes B and C, which are the consent forms I used for that process). I am in the process of requesting approval from MCFD to use the information I gathered in my initial research project as well as to interview ten additional families to add to the robustness of my research. I plan to obtain these names from MCFD and contact them in the exact way I did in my earlier research project. I will also contact the families from that project to inquire as to whether or not they would be willing to have their information used for this thesis project.
16. Will participants be competent to give consent?
[ X ] Yes (Go to Question 17)
[ ] No (e.g. Children and cognitively impaired people.) How will the issue
of consent be addressed? In the text box below give us a brief summary.
Research Proposal 45
17. Will participants be compensated? [ ] Yes How? [ X ] No (Go to Question 18)
In the text box below give us a brief summary.
18. Will consent be obtained from each participant either in writing or recorded?
[X ] Yes Please attach a copy of the Consent Form or the
questions/statements to be recorded. Each participant must receive one copy of the signed consent form at the time of signing. (Please refer to Appendixes D and E).
[ ] No Please attach information which will be provided to participants
and/or participant communities.
Note: Checklist of items to be addressed in your Information Sheet or Consent Form is provided at the end of this Approval Form.
19. Does the project involve any deception?
[ ] Yes Justify the use of deception and indicate how disclosure finally will
be addressed.
[ X ] No (Go to Question 20) 20. What is your plan for feedback to participants? How do you propose to
distribute results to participants?
I will inform participants through the Information Sheet (Appendix D) that they can contact me via phone or email to request a copy of the final report. I will also offer to meet with families to discuss the findings of the final report.
21. Will the research participants be from an institutional population; e.g.
company, agency, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, prisons, etc.
Research Proposal 46
[ ] Yes (Go to Question 22) [ X ] No (Go to Question 23)
22. If the answer to Question 21 is yes, attach a letter of consent for access from
the institution: e.g. company, agency, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, prisons etc.
[ ] Letter(s) of Consent attached
23. Will the research participants be participating as representatives of, or on
behalf of, an Aboriginal group? [ ] Yes Attach letter of consent from appropriate authority, e.g. Band
Council, etc. [ X ] No Go to Question 24)
24. Does this project require any other ethical approval, e.g. Hospital, First
Nations Band, Health Board, etc.? If so, please ensure that all guidelines are followed.
[ X ] Yes Please specify the agency and attach letter of consent/ethical
approval from the appropriate authority.
Ministry of Children and Family Development – Approval is being requested contingent on UNBC Research Ethics Board approval being granted.
[ ] Letter(s) of Consent attached
[ X ] No
Research Proposal 47
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Semi-Structured Interview Guideline Questions (To be completed with the female adult
caregiver in the kinship care home. Questions regarding male caregiver to be asked if
applicable)
1. What is your first and last name?
What is the first and last name of the male caregiver?
2. What is your date of birth?
What is the date of birth of the male caregiver?
3. Are you:
a. Married
b. Widowed
c. Separated
d. Divorced
e. Single, never married
4. What is the name of community in which you reside?
5. What do you consider to be your ethnicity?
What is the ethnicity of the male caregiver?
6. How many children live in your home? Under what status is each child in the home?
(i.e. kith and kin, birth child, foster child, etc)? What are their ages and ethnicities?
7. For how many months have your been providing kinship care?
8. What is your relationship to the child/ren in your care? Please provide a description of
how that child/ren came to live with you.
9. Have you previously provided care to children other than your own birth children? If
yes, please specify in what capacity.
10. Have you ever thought about how your role compares to the role of a foster parent?
What are some of the similarities and differences?
11. Please provide a detailed description of the special needs of the children in your home
under kinship care. Have these special needs been formally diagnosed?
12. Please describe a typical day in your family.
13. What is your level of formal education?
Research Proposal 48
a. less than high school graduation
b. high school graduation
c. some college/university/trade school
d. college/university/trade school graduate or more
What is the male caregiver‟s formal level of education?
e. less than high school graduation
f. high school graduation
g. some college/university/trade school
h. college/university/trade school graduate or more
14. Are you employed outside of the home? If yes, what is your occupation? How many
hours per week do you work?
Is the male caregiver employed outside of the home? If yes, what is his occupation?
How many hours per week does he work?
15. Is your yearly net wage, excluding kinship care payments (for both caregivers, if
applicable) between:
a. $0 – 10, 000
b. $10, 000 – 20, 000
c. $20, 000 – 30, 000
d. 30, 000 – 40, 000
e. 40, 000 – 50, 000
f. Over 50, 000
16. What are your alternate sources of funding?
a. disability pension
b. employment insurance
c. income assistance
d. Canada Pension Plan
e. Other, please specify
17. Do you have financial concerns for yourself/your family? If yes, please explain.
18. Do you own your own home, rent, or receive a subsidy?
19. How many times have you moved in the past 3 years?
20. Do you believe that you use some of your own money to care for the children in your
home under kinship care?
21. How would you rate your physical health?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
Research Proposal 49
How would you rate the physical health of the male caregiver in the home?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
22. How would you rate your mental health? (i.e. depression, anxiety)
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
How would you rate the mental health of the male caregiver in the home?
e. Excellent
f. Good
g. Fair
h. Poor
23. Do you follow a specific religious belief system? If yes, please specify. How often do
you take part in religious ceremonies (i.e. attend church)? Do you consider this
attendance to be a source of support?
24. Do you practice spirituality in other ways? If yes, please specify. Do you consider this
participation to be a source of support?
25. What kind of training did you receive in order to provide kinship care? Did you receive
training in:
a. Caring for a child with special needs
b. Parenting/Disciplining a child
c. Working with a child‟s birth parents?
d. Caring for a child of a different race/culture?
e. Caring for a sexually abused child?
f. Helping a child work through grief/loss issues?
g. Teaching a child skills for living on his/her own?
h. Contacting MCFD after hours if an emergency arises?
i. Other, please specify
26. Do you feel that you could benefit from more training? If yes, what type?
27. Is there anyone to help you take care of your children in kinship care by providing things
such as respite?
Research Proposal 50
28. Is there anyone to help you take care of your children in kinship care by buying things
for them or helping you to buy the things you need?
29. Please list the supports that you receive in caring for your children in kinship care.
30. What do you have right now in the way of resources/supports that you could not do
without?
31. What do you need most that you aren‟t getting?
32. Who listens to your problems/concerns?
33. Would you attend a support group for kinship carers if one existed? What might prevent
you from joining/encourage you to join?
34. How often do you have contact with a social worker in relation to your child/ren in
kinship care? Do you feel that this contact is enough? Do you feel that your social
worker knows enough about the kinship care to support you adequately?
35. When you think of your role as a kinship caregiver, is there anything you would like
people to know?
Research Proposal 51
Appendix B: Research Practicum Informed Consent 1 (Given before interview)
Informed Consent
You are invited to participate in a research study on kinship care in the North Region of British
Columbia. This study will be conducted by Susan Burke, Ministry for Children and Family
Development employee, at MCFD Regional office. This study is interested in the people who
are providing kinship care in Northern BC: Who are they, what are the needs of the children
they care for, and what are their service needs?
Your participation in this project will include an in-person interview. The interview can take
place in your home or, if you prefer, at another location chosen by you. The interview will be
about 1 to 1 ½ hours in length.
Your participation in this project is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw from the study,
without penalty, at any point. At any time during the interview, you can ask to have the tape
recorder turned off, not answer a question, or refuse to participate further.
Confidentiality and anonymity are guaranteed. No one will have access to the interview
information except the researcher and an MCFD research analyst, and no one will be able to see
your identity in the final research report. The tapes, interview notes, and transcripts will be
securely stored in the researcher‟s office at MCFD Regional Office.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Susan Burke at the MCFD Regional office
by phoning XXXXXX or by writing #462-1011-4th
Avenue, Prince George, BC, V2L 3H9.
I understand the purpose of the research and what my participation will entail. I am willing to
participate and give my permission to Susan Burke to use the information in a final research
report for MCFD.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of Participant Date signed
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of Susan Burke Date Signed
Research Proposal 52
Appendix C: Research Practicum Informed Consent 2 (Given after interview)
I have agreed to take part in a research project being conducted by Susan Burke, Ministry of
Children and Family Development employee.
I am willing to be contacted at a later date regarding signing consents for Susan Burke to use the
information from my interview in a thesis project for the University of Northern British
Columbia.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of Participant Date signed
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of Susan Burke Date Signed
Research Proposal 53
Appendix D: Information Sheet
What are the needs of kinship caregivers in the North Region of British Columbia?
Information Sheet
Dear Participant:
Thank-you for your interest in this research project and for your potential willingness to answer
questions pertaining to your family.
Your name has been provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) as
a current or past provider of Kinship Care in North-Central BC. This research is being
conducted in order to better understand the needs of Kinship Caregivers in this region. Another
goal of this research is to provide a picture of the types of families that are providing Kinship
Care and the types of children being cared for in Kinship Care arrangements.
Your participation in this study should take between 1 and 2 ½ hours. It will involve an
interview which can take place in your home or another area designated by you. Your
participation is entirely voluntary, so if you need to withdraw at any time, you may do so without
prejudice. There is no known risk to you associated with this research. The benefit is that, as a
person who has lived the real experience of providing Kinship Care, you will be able to give
your input, hopefully resulting in more of the needs of Kinship Caregivers being met in the
future. There is no remuneration for your participation.
Once your interview is completed, the results will be grouped with the other interview results
and analyzed. Your responses will be kept confidential and best efforts will be used to ensure
your identity is not revealed. The information you provide will be reflected in the final thesis;
however, anonymity will be maintained. The data will be stored in a locked suitcase at the
researcher‟s home and only she will have access to your responses. Once the research is
complete, all data, including identifying information, will be destroyed via a wood-burning
fireplace.
In case of any questions about the interview, please contact the researcher, Susan Burke, at
XXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXX. The final report will be available after completion of the
research (in approximately February of 2009). If at that time you would like a copy, please do
not hesitate to contact Susan at the phone number or email above. If you have any complaints
about this research, please direct them to the UNBC Office of Research at 250-960-5820 or
As part of this process, a copy of your consent form must be given to you. Whether or not you
choose to participate in this interview, I would like to thank you for your time spent in reading
over the above information.
Research Proposal 54
With warm regards,
Susan Burke
Research Proposal 55
Appendix E: Informed Consent
What are the Needs of kinship caregivers in the North Region of BC?:
Informed Consent
I understand that Susan Burke, who is a graduate student in the Masters of Social Work Program at the University of Northern British Columbia, is conducting a research project on kinship care. I understand that the purpose of this research project is to gain insight and information regarding the experiences of kinship caregivers. I understand that I was chosen because I am or was a kinship caregiver. I will be interviewed by the researcher, Susan Burke, based on 35 questions about my experiences as a kinship caregivers.
1. This consent is given on the understanding that Susan Burke will use her best efforts to guarantee that my identity is protected and my confidentiality maintained.
2. I give my consent freely and understand that I may end the interview at any point and
withdraw from the research process at any time. This decision will not impact the services I receive through the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
3. I understand and agree that the information I have given to Susan Burke in our interview
will be treated in the following manner:
a. The interview will be tape recorded and hand-written notes will be taken during our discussion.
b. This data will be securely stored by Susan Burke, only in a secure location in her private residence.
c. The data will be used only by Susan Burke and only for her thesis project d. The data will either be returned to me or burned in a metal fire pit at the end of the
thesis project.
4. I hereby waive any claim again Susan Burke, Dr. Glen Schmidt, the University of Northern British Columbia, its employees, administration, and Board of Governors with respect to the use of said information, provided it is used in accordance with this agreement.
5. I understand that if I have any comments or concerns, I can contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250-960-5820 or [email protected].
PARTICIPANT: __________________ SIGNED _____________________ DATE ________ RESEARCHER: _________________ SIGNED ______________________ DATE ________
Research Proposal 56
RESEARCH APPLICATION FORM B
(For research involving non-person identifiable information)
Ministry of Children and Family Development
Contents
Proposal and Agreement: Part A – Identification of Researcher Part B – Description of Research Project Part C – Information and/or Records, and Resources Part D – Agreement on Terms and Conditions of Access Part E – Approval
________________________
PART A - Identification of Researcher
Researcher: Susan Burke Adoption Social Worker Prince George XXXXXXXXXX
Institution Affiliation/Department OR Public Body/Program
University of Northern British Columbia 3333 University Way Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
Phone: 250-960-5555 Email: www.unbc.ca Academic Advisor: Dr. Glen Schmidt – 250-960-6519
PART B - Description of Research Project
A properly completed Application Form.
Written confirmation of approval in principle by a designated regional Community Service Manager and/or Regional Executive Director.
Approval was sent on March 4/08 via email, as agreed, by Robert Watts, Director of
Child Welfare, North Region.
For purposes of this document, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is referred to as the/a “public
body”.
Research Proposal 57
Ethics review/approval if research is affiliated with a post-secondary institution.
Please see attached document. The UNBC ethics board is being asked to approve this
project, contingent on the MCFD Decision Support Branch approving the project.
Consent form to be signed by research participant or his/her parent or legal guardian if the research involves direct contact with a person served by the ministry. The consent form must include a) a statement that s/he voluntarily agrees to participate; b). a statement that the organization will continue to provide services whether this participation occurs; c) a description of the nature of the research and what will be required of the participants; and d) a clear description of possible risks or discomfort.
This research will involve direct contact with people served by MCFD. Participants will
be asked to sign a consent form which includes the above-listed statements.
Other requirements from the ministry (e.g. staff time, data volume, advisory or consultation needs.)
This research will be completed on the researcher’s personal time. As part of the
research, several child protection social workers will be asked to consent to an
interview. Information will be sought from the North Region Research Analyst.
Consultation will be sought from Robert Watts, Director of Child Welfare and possibly
by other MCFD employees as the need arises.
The intended recipients/audience for the final research.
The thesis which will result from this research will be published and copies will be
available to the public through the UNBC library, so the intended audience could
include anyone with an interest in kinship care. My audience will also include my thesis
committee. Statement that a copy of the final research report will be provided to the Ministry.
A final copy of my thesis will be provided to Robert Watts, Director of Child Welfare,
and to the Decision Support Branch upon completion.
Research Proposal 58
Research Topic: In the Fall of 2007, I completed a research project on kinship care
through the MCFD North Region as part of my Masters of Social Work program
requirements. I came up with one primary research question and two sub-questions.
My primary question was, “What are the needs of kinship caregivers in the North
Region of BC?” and my sub-questions were, “What types of people are providing kinship
care?” and “What types of children are in kinship care?”
I began by completing a literature review, looking at what the literature has to say
about the 3 questions noted above. I also looked at the history of kinship care.
I worked primarily with Robert Watts, Director of Child Welfare, and Owen Gill,
Research Analyst. I was provided with a list of kinship caregivers in the North Region
and used MIS to refine this list to active kinship caregivers in the Prince George area.
I was left with a sample size of 10. I was careful not to include any families in my
sample that I have previously worked with, nor families who I will likely work with in
the future.
I constructed two spreadsheets, one with the names of the caregivers and one with
the names of the children. I then assigned each caregiver and each child a code (i.e.
“A”, “A1”) and this information was put into another set of spreadsheets so that the
names could be removed. The spreadsheet with the names is kept on my MCFD work
compute. All of the work that I did from that point identified each family/child by a
code letter/number only.
I contacted the kinship caregivers in my sample and requested an interview. All of the
caregivers agreed to meet with me. I had them sign two consent forms at that time,
a standard form as well as another form indicating their consent for me to contact
them at a later date regarding using the information for my thesis. All of the kinship
caregivers signed both forms without hesitation.
I used a semi-formal interview process, meeting with the kinship caregivers at a place
chosen by them. I gave each a copy of the questionnaire I had constructed and we
proceeded with a discussion for 1 – 2 ½ hours.
I later conducted a thematic analysis using this information and came up with themes
in the stated needs of the kinship caregivers.
I read through the CS files of the children who were in the kinship care placements as
well as the FS files of the parents of those children. I took notes regarding the
reasons for the children becoming involved in the child welfare system and being
placed in kinship care, as well as any noted special needs. I also took note of any
physical/mental health issues faced by the birth parents. I requested a meeting with
Research Proposal 59
the social worker attached to each family/child and met with them to discuss their
understanding of the child’s special needs, birth parents special needs, and reasons for
the children being in kinship care. I then looked through this information for themes.
All of the information noted above was compiled into a report for my practicum
supervisor, Robert Watts.
At this time, I am requesting permission to use the information obtained through my
research practicum for my thesis. I am also requesting approval to facilitate this
process with 5 – 10 additional kinship care placements. This process would include
interviewing the families, reviewing the CS/FS files, and speaking to the involved
social workers.
I feel that this is exciting research. The use of kinship care placements by MCFD has
been on the increase in the past 10 years, yet virtually no research has been
conducted on kinship care in BC, let alone in the unique geographical area of Northern
BC. I hope that this research will increase the knowledge that we have around kinship
care. I hope that it helps the families who are providing kinship care and, ultimately,
that it will help the children who live in kinship care placements.
PART C – Information and/or Records and Resources
Please list all information, records or resources to which access is requested. Access will be given only to information, records or resources listed below. Any changes or additions to this list after submission should be made in writing to DSB, and will require approval. This section defines the parameters of access. To facilitate the research project, access is required to: (for example, child protection social workers)
Information
Information from the MCFD Intranet (i.e. Vision Statement).
Information from Mars program (statistical program) regarding kinship care and foster
care.
Access to the MIS system to retrieve contact information regarding kinship
caregivers.
Information obtained from interviews with kinship caregivers and with the social
workers who are working with them and with the children in their homes.
Records
CS files of children in kinship care. FS files of parents whose children are in kinship
care. Resources
Robert Watts, Director of Child Welfare, North Region – 565-4367
Research Proposal 60
Owen Gill, Research Analyst, North Region – 565-4376
Elaine Lamb, Guardianship Team Leader, North Region – 565-6215
Frank Mossop, Practice Analyst, North Region – 565-4367
PART D - Agreement on Terms and Conditions of Access 1. If this proposal is approved and I am granted access to the information, records and/or resources
listed in Part C, I understand that
X as an employee of a public body, performing research for the public body, I will abide by, my Oath of Employment and Code of Conduct regarding confidentiality, disclosure, security and records management.
as a private citizen, performing research for my own interest, I must not collect, disclose or use the information/resources/facility to which I have been granted access except as outlined and for the purposes set out in this Agreement. Unauthorized access to, or modification of, or use of, the information, resources or facility, except as provided in this Agreement, is a fundamental breach of the Agreement. Penalty for such a breach would include immediate termination of access and referral to appropriate institution or public body for investigation and possible legal action.
2. I agree to appropriately reference the source of the all data as being the British Columbia Ministry of
Children and Family Development, or Authority(ies) (as appropriate). 3. I, the Researcher, will provide the signing head of the public body or delegate (as indicated on the
signature page of this agreement) with copies of the final written findings of the research project, prior to these being published or distributed.
4. The public body will be deemed to have approved release of any proposed publication or distribution
unless the Researcher is notified to the contrary within 45 days of the DSB’s receipt of the materials. When submitting the materials, reference should be made to a citation for a publication. In the case of a separate publication, not as an article in a journal, one copy of the final publication shall be provided to APMB.
5. I, the Researcher, agree to destroy all data at the conclusion of the research project. 6. I understand that I am responsible for ensuring complete compliance with these terms and conditions,
and in the event that I become aware of a breach of any of the conditions of this agreement, I will immediately notify APMB by phone.
7. Further, I accept that the expiry date for access to the information, records and/or resources in Part C
is the date as listed below. Signed at _______________________, this __________ day of _______, 20_____. _______________________________ _______________________________ Signature of Researcher Signature of Witness ________________________________ Name and Position of Witness
Research Proposal 61
This application to be electronically submitted by Researcher to: [email protected], Decision Support Branch. ‘Approval in principle’ from the designated ministry manager must accompany the application.
Research Proposal 62
PART E – Approval (Review and sign-off routing facilitated by DSB.)
Program Recommendation approval in principle attached
DSB methodology review comments attached
___________________________ _________________________________ ______________ Signature Position/Title Date
Other major stakeholder(s) if/as required comments attached
___________________________ _________________________________ ______________ Signature Position/Title Date
IO privacy issues review comments attached
___________________________ _________________________________ ______________ Signature Position/Title Date
Executive SIGN-OFF comments attached
The affected public body,
APPROVES the research project subject to the terms and conditions specified in Part D and granting access
to information, records or resources as indicated in Part C.
The expiry date for access to the information, records or resources listed in Part C is: ____ / ____ / ____ (year / month / day) OR
REJECTS the proposal for research
___________________________ ____________________________________ ______________ Signature Head of Public Body or Delegate Date distribution by Decision Support Branch after all signatures obtained (original and 3 copies)
OPR original retained by DSB
copy forwarded to researcher
non-OPR copy retained by program area
non-OPR copy retained by IPS